Skip to main content
Glama

CHT Graetz Submit

cht_graetz_submit
Destructive

Replace plug-flow Nusselt estimates with a laminar flow-coupled Graetz simulation in Elmer and validate the fitted thermal decay against the exact Graetz eigenvalue.

Instructions

Flow-coupled Graetz channel via Elmer (SIMULATION_NEXT B4), asynchronous — the TRUE Nusselt validation that upgrades cht_channel_submit's plug flow: FlowSolve computes the real laminar profile and HeatSolver rides on it (Convection = Computed) between two isothermal walls. Requires ElmerSolver; when absent this returns {ok:false, reason, install} rather than raising.

Two gates: the solved parabola's u_max/u_mean ≡ 3/2 exactly, and the developed mixing-cup decay d ln(T_wall−T_bulk)/dx fitted over the second half of the channel yields Nu, gated against the Graetz eigenvalue Nu_T = 7.5407 (parallel plates, constant wall temperature) — a slug profile would give π² = 9.87, so the gate also proves the profile coupling is real. This closes the loop with the h_estimate correlation screen. The writer polices Re < 400, development lengths inside the first 45 %, and cell Péclet ≤ 25. Also accepts a prepared case_dir.

Returns the degradation dict or {job_id, status, cache_hit}; poll job_result for {ok, u_max_over_mean (≈1.5), nu_fit, nu_exact, nu_ratio (≈1, ±10 %), nu_slug, reynolds, prandtl, pe_cell, case_dir}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nxNo
nyNo
sifNocase.sif
gap_mNo
t_in_cNo
k_fluidNo
case_dirNo
cp_fluidNo
length_mNo
mu_fluidNo
t_wall_cNo
rho_fluidNo
velocity_m_sNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses asynchronous behavior (returns job_id/status/cache_hit), graceful failure when ElmerSolver is missing, and the writer's constraints on Re, development length, and Péclet. These are valuable behavioral details not present in the annotations, and nothing contradicts them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence serves a purpose: it front-loads the core differentiator, then covers gates, constraints, failure mode, and return/polling details. No fluff is present, and the structure flows logically from purpose to usage to behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex submit tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, yet the description covers the workflow thoroughly: prerequisites, asynchronous pattern, acceptance gates, writer constraints, and exact result fields to poll. The only missing piece is per-parameter documentation, which is already penalized under parameter semantics; overall, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It provides domain context (channel flow, fluid properties, wall temperatures) and explicitly mentions case_dir as an alternative input, but it does not individually document the 13 parameters. The parameter names and defaults partially self-explain, and the domain narrative helps, but full compensation is lacking.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states this tool runs a flow-coupled Graetz channel simulation via Elmer to compute the true laminar Nusselt number, contrasting it with the sibling cht_channel_submit's plug-flow approximation. It names the resource (ElmerSolver) and the action (submit), making the intent unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description positions the tool as an upgrade to cht_channel_submit, indicating when the more accurate Graetz validation is appropriate, and states the ElmerSolver prerequisite. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the sibling contrast and requirement provide clear contextual guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools